Scanning Negatives help! I've gotta be doing something wrong . . .

Ryan Trevisol · 05-16-2011, 07:49 PM

So this afternoon when I got home from work, I furtively decided to scan a few more negatives. This time I used the built in scanning utility in Mac OSX. Apparently the HP Scan software is on crack or something.

Surprise surprise! Strangely . . . normal. Granted I had to do the expected tweaks like Smart Sharpen, Levels and Curves, but I didn't have to correct a horrid color cast. Now take a look at this shot from the BW400CN roll:

Not too bad! I had to sharpen it but it looks good - it's not as detailed as the Superia shot, but it's also not bursting with grain and noise. So I don't think that's being introduced by the scanner - also the sharpness of the color shot kind of rules out the camera and lens screwing things up. So I guess it's down to a newbie film shooter and crappy film.

I'm anxious to get the roll of TMax 100 back that I shot. I'm hoping it will be smother and will have decent detail.

stevebrot · 05-16-2011, 09:03 PM

Hard to say since the source negs are different, thought they do look pretty good. For comparison, here is a full resolution crop of a TMax 100 negative scanned at 2400 dpi with both the Nikon 5000ED and the V700:

Here is the source image:

Ricoh XR7, Tamron 28/2.5 02B

And the same negative scanned at maximum resolution for both scanners:

Steve

Ryan Trevisol · 05-17-2011, 04:09 AM

Wow. Okay. Now I have scanner envy! Both your scanners blow away mine!

artobest · 05-17-2011, 07:46 AM

If you're getting unmanageable contrast in your scans, the answer may be a highly collimated, or directional, light source. Many scanners with LED light sources have this problem - it's inherent in the scanner and there's little you can do about it, short of rigging up some kind of diffuser between your film and the light.

stevebrot · 05-17-2011, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol

Wow. Okay. Now I have scanner envy! Both your scanners blow away mine!

Sorry...

The intent was to illustrate what a clean 2400 dpi looks like. There are users on this forum that get similar results from sub-$200 flatbed scanners from Epson and Canon. I am not sure about HP, though your all-in-one is probably delivering somewhat less than 2400. The inflation of scanner resolution specs is really bothersome to me, though I guess there is little that can be done about it in the absence of ISO standards. The CCD array is probably up the task, but the optical path generally is not. As a result, I always try and make a strong point about the issue when people make inquiries about film scanning.

BTW...the Nikon is probably the gold standard (along with Minolta DiMage units) of consumer film scanners. Too bad neither is made any more.

Steve

P.S. I learned my lesson several years ago with the purchase of a Microtek s400 (9600x4800 dpi). While every bit as good as my V700 for reflected light scans, transparent scans with the accessory light bar were very sub-par. So much for 4800 dpi!

Ryan Trevisol · 05-17-2011, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by artobest

If you're getting unmanageable contrast in your scans, the answer may be a highly collimated, or directional, light source. Many scanners with LED light sources have this problem - it's inherent in the scanner and there's little you can do about it, short of rigging up some kind of diffuser between your film and the light.

That I can do, but I doubt it's going to help resolution too much.

Originally posted by stevebrot

Sorry...

The intent was to illustrate what a clean 2400 dpi looks like. I am not sure about HP, though your all-in-one is probably delivering somewhat less than 2400. The CCD array is probably up the task, but the optical path generally is not.

You're probably right. My assumption was based on looking at the files dead on and seeing one pixel's worth of information spread across 2 pixels tall and wide but that's probably not half, but 1/4 the detail. It's interesting to note that when you try to scan at 4800dpi using HP's software, it suggests you use like 600dpi and 400% zoom, which doesn't make sense on any planet I'm aware of. In any event, do you have any experience with the one suggested earlier? The Pacific Image 3600U? I know it's USB 1.1 but it's available ~$50-80 used and that seems very reasonable. Also it seems to get higher reviews than other (new) scanners in that price range that have come up (namely the ones that use a CMOS sensor to take a photo of the negative

stevebrot · 05-17-2011, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol

it suggests you use like 600dpi and 400% zoom

There is your problem. Scan at the target resolution. Never upsample. Be aware of the target dimensions. They should match the source dimensions when doing a film scan. Your aim is to reproduce 1:1 at the desired resolution.

One other tip: Be very careful with USM. A little goes a long way with film scans and when used improperly, all you do is get courser grain. Ditto for noise reduction/smoothing. In general, you should not need it and the artifacts generated are not worth the effort.

Steve

Ryan Trevisol · 05-17-2011, 10:58 AM

Thanks for the tips!

So are you saying that 600DPI is the upper hardware limit of the scanner (though it's advertised at 4800 optical, up to 19200 interpolated), or are you saying that 600dpi is the limit of what I should be scanning negatives?

Hmmmm, now I'm craving a film scanner.

stevebrot · 05-17-2011, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol

Thanks for the tips!

So are you saying that 600DPI is the upper hardware limit of the scanner (though it's advertised at 4800 optical, up to 19200 interpolated), or are you saying that 600dpi is the limit of what I should be scanning negatives?

Hmmmm, now I'm craving a film scanner.

I am saying that your scan settings are wrong. Set scan resolution to 4800, zoom to 100%. This will give you the maximum resolution that your scanner is capable of. Your current settings represent a 4x data extrapolation. That is why the image is all pixelated in a full resolution crop. Beyond that you can experiment with lower resolutions and/or downsampling to get more reasonable file sizes while still getting acceptable quality.

Steve

Ryan Trevisol · 05-17-2011, 01:31 PM

No, that's not what I scanned any of those images at. I scanned all the images at 4800/100%. I'm just saying that's what the HP software told me to do. I overrode it.

Kim C · 05-17-2011, 02:17 PM

I couldn't agree more about Nikon especially the 8000ED. The only minor snag is that there are no 64bit drivers for it.

The first pic shows to overall image taken from an MF neg straight out the scanner but reduced ib size to 800 pixels. The second is a prtion showing the front number as it came out the scanner.

Originally posted by stevebrot

Sorry...

BTW...the Nikon is probably the gold standard (along with Minolta DiMage units) of consumer film scanners. Too bad neither is made any more.

Steve

Ryan Trevisol · 05-17-2011, 02:55 PM

Great results - but let's be clear - I won't ever have $2000 to spend on a scanner of any sort. That's great and all, but I need a more realistic suggestion. If the only decent scanner I can get its into the hundreds of dollars, it slips waaay down on my budget. There a lot of things in my photographic and other areas of my life that I could and would spend several hundred dollars on before a film scanner.

You have to remember my goals here. I'm going to europe, and I'm going to be shooting 1000+ digital pictures. I'm going to be shooting a half a dozen rolls of film. If I have to send them off to be scanned, that's what I'll do. If something like the 3600u will give me acceptable results that I can store digitally and get processed digitally at around 11x17, I'll be happy to have it and continue to shoot film regularly. Otherwise I need to think about my future with film as I don't have the money to invest in something like that.

Kim C · 05-17-2011, 03:03 PM

I haven't got $2000 for a scanner either.

It was a long wait but I managed to get this one for around $300.

It came from a studio who had it to scan films when a couple of clients still insisted on film. When they went digital so did the scanner.

I was perhaps lucky but if you keep looking on all the sites, you may well find one. I've seen the 35mm scanners go for similar prices as well.

Kim

Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol

Great results - but let's be clear - I won't ever have $2000 to spend on a scanner of any sort. That's great and all, but I need a more realistic suggestion. If the only decent scanner I can get its into the hundreds of dollars, it slips waaay down on my budget. There a lot of things in my photographic and other areas of my life that I could and would spend several hundred dollars on before a film scanner.

cats_five · 05-17-2011, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol

You have to remember my goals here. I'm going to europe, and I'm going to be shooting 1000+ digital pictures. I'm going to be shooting a half a dozen rolls of film. If I have to send them off to be scanned, that's what I'll do.

Unless you are doing your own development, get them scanned when they are developed. If you get a good lab on the job you will get a far better scan than you can do yourself. If you have any doubts about the quality of their scanning, ask for the film to be UNCUT or don't cut if you develop them yourself. In the UK it's cheaper to get an uncut film scanned than one cut into strips of 4 or 6 negatives. Once you are happy with the scans cut into strips of 6 and store in a appropriate envelope.

Ryan Trevisol · 05-18-2011, 05:04 AM

I've contacted a local lab that does B&W processing and I'll see what they would charge for scanning to CD. I have this test roll waiting to be developed, so it'll be a good test of their scanning. I specifically mentioned that I wanted 2400dpi or above in my email so we'll see what they say, and how much they'll want for that.

05-16-2011, 09:03 PM	#17
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Hard to say since the source negs are different, thought they do look pretty good. For comparison, here is a full resolution crop of a TMax 100 negative scanned at 2400 dpi with both the Nikon 5000ED and the V700: Here is the source image: Ricoh XR7, Tamron 28/2.5 02B And the same negative scanned at maximum resolution for both scanners: Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 05-16-2011 at 09:21 PM.

05-17-2011, 08:11 AM	#21
Ryan Trevisol Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: South Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 312 Original Poster	Originally posted by artobest If you're getting unmanageable contrast in your scans, the answer may be a highly collimated, or directional, light source. Many scanners with LED light sources have this problem - it's inherent in the scanner and there's little you can do about it, short of rigging up some kind of diffuser between your film and the light. That I can do, but I doubt it's going to help resolution too much. Originally posted by stevebrot Sorry... The intent was to illustrate what a clean 2400 dpi looks like. I am not sure about HP, though your all-in-one is probably delivering somewhat less than 2400. The CCD array is probably up the task, but the optical path generally is not. You're probably right. My assumption was based on looking at the files dead on and seeing one pixel's worth of information spread across 2 pixels tall and wide but that's probably not half, but 1/4 the detail. It's interesting to note that when you try to scan at 4800dpi using HP's software, it suggests you use like 600dpi and 400% zoom, which doesn't make sense on any planet I'm aware of. In any event, do you have any experience with the one suggested earlier? The Pacific Image 3600U? I know it's USB 1.1 but it's available ~$50-80 used and that seems very reasonable. Also it seems to get higher reviews than other (new) scanners in that price range that have come up (namely the ones that use a CMOS sensor to take a photo of the negative Last edited by Ryan Trevisol; 05-17-2011 at 08:22 AM.

05-17-2011, 02:17 PM	#26
Kim C Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Lincoln, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 229	I couldn't agree more about Nikon especially the 8000ED. The only minor snag is that there are no 64bit drivers for it. The first pic shows to overall image taken from an MF neg straight out the scanner but reduced ib size to 800 pixels. The second is a prtion showing the front number as it came out the scanner. Originally posted by stevebrot Sorry... BTW...the Nikon is probably the gold standard (along with Minolta DiMage units) of consumer film scanners. Too bad neither is made any more. Steve Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Scanning photos and negatives	Capslock118	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	22	12-27-2010 01:20 AM
How to clean negatives for scanning?	ismaelg	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	39	09-14-2010 11:35 AM
Scanning negatives.	hahifuheho	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	39	11-25-2009 08:19 PM
Seeking advice on scanning negatives	ismaelg	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	06-05-2009 12:47 AM
Questions about Scanning Negatives	lawsonstone	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	04-27-2009 07:24 AM

05-16-2011, 07:49 PM	#16
Ryan Trevisol Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: South Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 312 Original Poster	So this afternoon when I got home from work, I furtively decided to scan a few more negatives. This time I used the built in scanning utility in Mac OSX. Apparently the HP Scan software is on crack or something. Surprise surprise! Strangely . . . normal. Granted I had to do the expected tweaks like Smart Sharpen, Levels and Curves, but I didn't have to correct a horrid color cast. Now take a look at this shot from the BW400CN roll: Not too bad! I had to sharpen it but it looks good - it's not as detailed as the Superia shot, but it's also not bursting with grain and noise. So I don't think that's being introduced by the scanner - also the sharpness of the color shot kind of rules out the camera and lens screwing things up. So I guess it's down to a newbie film shooter and crappy film. I'm anxious to get the roll of TMax 100 back that I shot. I'm hoping it will be smother and will have decent detail.

05-17-2011, 04:09 AM	#18
Ryan Trevisol Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: South Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 312 Original Poster	Wow. Okay. Now I have scanner envy! Both your scanners blow away mine!

05-17-2011, 07:46 AM	#19
artobest Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Swansea, Wales Posts: 455	If you're getting unmanageable contrast in your scans, the answer may be a highly collimated, or directional, light source. Many scanners with LED light sources have this problem - it's inherent in the scanner and there's little you can do about it, short of rigging up some kind of diffuser between your film and the light.

05-17-2011, 07:46 AM	#20
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol Wow. Okay. Now I have scanner envy! Both your scanners blow away mine! Sorry... The intent was to illustrate what a clean 2400 dpi looks like. There are users on this forum that get similar results from sub-$200 flatbed scanners from Epson and Canon. I am not sure about HP, though your all-in-one is probably delivering somewhat less than 2400. The inflation of scanner resolution specs is really bothersome to me, though I guess there is little that can be done about it in the absence of ISO standards. The CCD array is probably up the task, but the optical path generally is not. As a result, I always try and make a strong point about the issue when people make inquiries about film scanning. BTW...the Nikon is probably the gold standard (along with Minolta DiMage units) of consumer film scanners. Too bad neither is made any more. Steve P.S. I learned my lesson several years ago with the purchase of a Microtek s400 (9600x4800 dpi). While every bit as good as my V700 for reflected light scans, transparent scans with the accessory light bar were very sub-par. So much for 4800 dpi!

05-17-2011, 10:42 AM	#22
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol it suggests you use like 600dpi and 400% zoom There is your problem. Scan at the target resolution. Never upsample. Be aware of the target dimensions. They should match the source dimensions when doing a film scan. Your aim is to reproduce 1:1 at the desired resolution. One other tip: Be very careful with USM. A little goes a long way with film scans and when used improperly, all you do is get courser grain. Ditto for noise reduction/smoothing. In general, you should not need it and the artifacts generated are not worth the effort. Steve

05-17-2011, 10:58 AM	#23
Ryan Trevisol Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: South Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 312 Original Poster	Thanks for the tips! So are you saying that 600DPI is the upper hardware limit of the scanner (though it's advertised at 4800 optical, up to 19200 interpolated), or are you saying that 600dpi is the limit of what I should be scanning negatives? Hmmmm, now I'm craving a film scanner.

05-17-2011, 12:57 PM	#24
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol Thanks for the tips! So are you saying that 600DPI is the upper hardware limit of the scanner (though it's advertised at 4800 optical, up to 19200 interpolated), or are you saying that 600dpi is the limit of what I should be scanning negatives? Hmmmm, now I'm craving a film scanner. I am saying that your scan settings are wrong. Set scan resolution to 4800, zoom to 100%. This will give you the maximum resolution that your scanner is capable of. Your current settings represent a 4x data extrapolation. That is why the image is all pixelated in a full resolution crop. Beyond that you can experiment with lower resolutions and/or downsampling to get more reasonable file sizes while still getting acceptable quality. Steve

05-17-2011, 01:31 PM	#25
Ryan Trevisol Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: South Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 312 Original Poster	No, that's not what I scanned any of those images at. I scanned all the images at 4800/100%. I'm just saying that's what the HP software told me to do. I overrode it.

05-17-2011, 02:55 PM	#27
Ryan Trevisol Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: South Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 312 Original Poster	Great results - but let's be clear - I won't ever have $2000 to spend on a scanner of any sort. That's great and all, but I need a more realistic suggestion. If the only decent scanner I can get its into the hundreds of dollars, it slips waaay down on my budget. There a lot of things in my photographic and other areas of my life that I could and would spend several hundred dollars on before a film scanner. You have to remember my goals here. I'm going to europe, and I'm going to be shooting 1000+ digital pictures. I'm going to be shooting a half a dozen rolls of film. If I have to send them off to be scanned, that's what I'll do. If something like the 3600u will give me acceptable results that I can store digitally and get processed digitally at around 11x17, I'll be happy to have it and continue to shoot film regularly. Otherwise I need to think about my future with film as I don't have the money to invest in something like that.

05-17-2011, 03:03 PM	#28
Kim C Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Lincoln, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 229	I haven't got $2000 for a scanner either. It was a long wait but I managed to get this one for around $300. It came from a studio who had it to scan films when a couple of clients still insisted on film. When they went digital so did the scanner. I was perhaps lucky but if you keep looking on all the sites, you may well find one. I've seen the 35mm scanners go for similar prices as well. Kim Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol Great results - but let's be clear - I won't ever have $2000 to spend on a scanner of any sort. That's great and all, but I need a more realistic suggestion. If the only decent scanner I can get its into the hundreds of dollars, it slips waaay down on my budget. There a lot of things in my photographic and other areas of my life that I could and would spend several hundred dollars on before a film scanner.

05-17-2011, 11:32 PM	#29
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835	Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol You have to remember my goals here. I'm going to europe, and I'm going to be shooting 1000+ digital pictures. I'm going to be shooting a half a dozen rolls of film. If I have to send them off to be scanned, that's what I'll do. Unless you are doing your own development, get them scanned when they are developed. If you get a good lab on the job you will get a far better scan than you can do yourself. If you have any doubts about the quality of their scanning, ask for the film to be UNCUT or don't cut if you develop them yourself. In the UK it's cheaper to get an uncut film scanned than one cut into strips of 4 or 6 negatives. Once you are happy with the scans cut into strips of 6 and store in a appropriate envelope.

05-18-2011, 05:04 AM	#30
Ryan Trevisol Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: South Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 312 Original Poster	I've contacted a local lab that does B&W processing and I'll see what they would charge for scanning to CD. I have this test roll waiting to be developed, so it'll be a good test of their scanning. I specifically mentioned that I wanted 2400dpi or above in my email so we'll see what they say, and how much they'll want for that.